Let me make this clear at the very beginning: Quantum Theory is vastly different than Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics is essentially applying Quantum Theory in the realm of physics. I just recently read an article about how very smart people are starting to take the mathematical language of Quantum Theory to other disciplines. I am going to go ahead and actually quote from certain sections of this article, so therefore I am going to cite this particular article.

One implication that this mathematical language has shown a huge influence on, is logic. The thought experiment presented in this article, had a physics nature about it to express how this correlates to human logic. Imagine a thin sheet of paper, with two slits titled A and B. If we were to open one slit up, let’s say A, and spray spray paint through that slit, we would get a certain pattern on the wall behind it. Let’s do the reverse. Let’s open slit B while closing slit A, and spray spray paint revealing a similar pattern on the wall compared to before. Now, using classical logic, it would make sense if we were to open up both slits, that the resulting pattern would be the sum of the previous two patterns. Unfortunately, through quantum theory this is not the case. In fact, the overall pattern is vastly different. What is astonishing, is the language has equations to explain this phenomenon.

So a competent reader can already see that quantum theory could really revolutionize logic, in a sense by disproving classical logic. There is a whole mathematical language called logic, and that is traditional logic. Quantum Theory could shake the foundations of that whole area of math. Further, people have been using quantum theory and not really realizing it. In this article, the main inventor of the search algorithms of Google, realized that he was using Quantum Theory ideas in his math. I think we all know how well that search engine works. And, towards the end of the article, brilliant minds in the realms of robotics are starting to apply Quantum Theory to the logic part of the robotic brain. There is evidence that these programs are starting to deduce conclusions; in other words, they might be learning on themselves. It seems that Artificial Intelligence could very well be possible, and the key would be Quantum Theory.

A thought psychologist was interviewed, and he thought quantum theory is a better representation or description to human thought. Human thought does not ultimately follow classic logic in all circumstances.

And so, seeing how this language is having such an impact in our understanding of our world around us, I wanted to quote a specific paragraph. This absolutely blew my mind.

“The strange links go beyond probability, Aerts argues, to the realm of quantum uncertainty. One aspect of this is that the properties of particles do not exist until they are measured. The experiment doing the measuring determines what properties an electron might have.”

This is insane. Because, the whole premise of the scientific method, is that the experimental system is just witnessing a natural phenomenon. But, if what this mathematical language is saying, is the very experiment dictates the behavior of the system that is being measured in the first place. This ultimately explains why even through our current scientific method, humanity will never find Truth. Simply, because once the experiment is done, the particles go to their true form. Now, experiments might create conditions of those particles that are closer to their true form, but we will never see a particle in its true form using an experiment. Period. Because the experiment dictates the properties of the particle.

So essentially, this is evidence and an explanation, as to why we will never obtain Truth. And why our universe is infinite while our minds and methodology is finite. I suppose the fix to this problem, would be to create a whole other scientific methodology without experimentation. Of course, as we know it, this is not possible, because over the centuries we have been refining the process of experimentation. Maybe, just maybe, a very bright mind will create a whole new reliable process that does not use experimentation while providing concrete conclusions about the reality among us. Or, this is just not possible.

This has huge implications to our current times as well. CERN has just released a report saying that they clocked a particle called neutrinos that traveled faster than the speed of light. Of course, the CERN is asking other labs across the globe to either verify or refute those findings. Everyone within the scientific community thinks the methodology is solid, which means that the process is credible. The beauty of this method so far though, is that labs might find other conclusions, or the same. We do not know at this point. The implications right now, is that if the neutrino is clocked to travel faster than the speed of light, than one of the Einsteins most famous theories would be in jeapordy. The Theory of Relativity. In the thought experiments that Einstein used to derive this theory, his assumption was that the speed of light was constant in no matter what frame of reference the object was in. In other words, there was nothing faster than the speed of light.

And well, now there is an experiment that might show that things do travel faster than the speed of light.

But let’s go back to what quantum theory suggests. Quantum Theory suggests that the very nature of this experiment could create conditions of the targeted particle, resulting in a particle that traveled faster than the speed of light. And when that experiment is stopped, the targeted particle (in this case the neutrino) would go back to a purely natural existence. Which, could very well be an existence where the neutrino does not travel faster than the speed of light.

So even if labs across the globe conclude that the neutrino travels faster than the speed of light, that does not necessarily mean it is so. Because of the nature of the experiment, which therefore totally undermines our whole entire scientific method. However, it is clear that this method is not completely wrong. We have been able to come to solid conclusions and from those understandings, do some very powerful stuff with the world around us. Which means, maybe truly good experimentation would create an experiment that would provide the conditions of whatever in the system closest to natural existence possible. We may never know how this is accomplished, but, I think considering our understanding, we have probably accomplished this unintentionally.

I just had one of those eye-opening experiences in class, and this time it was during my Calculus III class today. We just got introduced to functions with multiple variables. During all this time studying calculus, we have been looking at an output that is dependent upon one input. Now, things are spiced up a bit and we are starting to look at an output that is dependent upon two, maybe even three variables.

Let’s work from the ground up. When looking at the very first functions studied, the domain and the range were dependent upon one dimensions, or well, a line. When we add another variable to the domain (input) this essentially produces a surface/plane depending upon the conditions of the domain. (Some domains are all real numbers, while some have very specific conditions.) This essentially means that the surface dictates the value of one dimension, or a line. Which means, I am sure math has explored functions that not only have a multidimensional domain, but also a multi-dimensional range. However, let’s keep it simple. As numbers are picked upon the two-dimensional surface that are legitimate for the overall function (domain) a z coordinate is produced showing a three-dimensional surface if everything was plotted.

From there we went into cross sections. Topologists (map makers) basically use this concept constantly when calculating the height (z coordinate) of surfaces. Essentially if they can create a two-dimensional axis of x and y, they draw a line that corresponds to a constant z. After all the z’s are recorded, a three-dimensional surface can therefore be constructed, producing three-dimensional maps of the world around us.

But….let’s get even more spicy….

What if we were to make the domain of our function dependent upon three variables or dimensions? The output inevitably could be a minimum of one more dimension. Which means, if one were to attempt to graph the entire system, the minimum would have to be four dimensions.

How is that possible?

My awesome teacher basically proposed the strategies of the topologists to this problem with a three-dimensional domain. The domain was essentially a sphere. And well, the only way the human mind (at this point) can capture the overall system, is to show a sphere that shrinks or expands depending upon the passage of time.

This is why I think many intellectuals and geniuses view the fourth dimension as time. And well, I do not necessarily think this is the case. I think the human mind perceives the fourth dimension as time, I do not deny that. But just because the human mind perceives something does not mean whatever is being perceived is Truth.

Therefore, just as the fourth dimension could very well be time, I think it could just be as possible that the concept of time is just a perceivement. Time is just the result of our brains trying to “see” a dimension that is not easily seen.

If the reader has been reading other posts of mine, in one post that I wrote I talked about the possibility of humanity to be able to fully perceive other dimensions by either evolving or deriving another sense. In which case, if I follow the same conclusions of that post, I think it is possible for humanity to either break the boundaries of the five senses, or derive other senses using the fundamental five. This will inevitably change our percievement, which raises the possibility of being able to perceive more dimensions past three.

So, what would the fourth dimension look like? Would we still perceive it as the passage of time? Or would another phenomena take place?

Today was amazing. Not only do I understand why theoretical physicists and mathematicians think that the fourth dimension is time, but by combining other thoughts and conclusions that I have made, I have deduced that time just could be the manifestation of our percievement, which does not necessarily mean reality.

And well, this class also showed me once again how math builds upon itself. I finally understand why finding domain and ranges are so important. And by following the foundations of practices of functions with one variable, processes can be figured out and followed to functions with more than one. (Derivatives, Integrals, etc.)

I suppose I am going to attempt to combine many different aspects of my knowledge into this post. So what is difficult with this entry in particular, is to keep a sense of fluidity within the language. In other words, when I attempt to bring in another set of knowledge, to not make the overall transition seem completely random. As the title suggests, I am going to talk about the flow of money and what debt does to this whole equation. It is in my view, that this produces a population who are enslaved.

“Nobody is more enslaved, than a slave who thinks they are free.” – Author Unknown at this point

In order to really grasp the second half of this post, the consequences of debt, I am going to examine the consumerism society that we live in. If India were to continue their growth rate, and were to meet the same consumption per capita as Americans, India alone would consume all of the world’s resources. Now, there are so many avenues to take this. (Intrinsic waste, over population, sustainability, etc.) However, I am going to focus on how the large amounts of consumerism drives enslavement.

The constant bombardment of push and pull advertisements eventually creates a lot of people wanting all sorts of products and services. If one were to buy this eyeliner, their beauty would be magnified ten fold. Buy this product! So on and so forth. And well, this mentality, is the driving factor as to why so many people put themselves in debt, to essentially live outside of their means.

So to really capture this whole picture, where does all this money go?

If let’s say I get a paycheck from working a couple of weeks as a projectionist at a movie theater, (I was a projectionist for about two years) that money was spent on all sorts of goods and services, driving consumption and thus driving the economy. I would buy a new video game, or, I would pay my cell phone bill. Maybe, I would take a nice girl out to lunch, or buy some new music for my iPod. The options were endless, and for the most part, I rarely saved my paycheck and I spent every dime. Those products and services are owned by other companies, who pay other people, whereby they will consume with other companies. In examining what exactly happens, let us take an extreme. Let us presume everyone can buy everything with sheer cash. Corporations would still receive profits, but two things would occur:

“Growth” would not be as strong. Leverage (the ratio of actual earnings to debt) allows for more resources to hopefully create a business that is solvent. (Some do fail of course)

Banks would not make money. (Remember, banks make money by loaning out money and charging interest on the loan. If from the very beginning banks just stored cash, there might be means to make more capital however it is safe to say profits would be substantially less.)

So in our real world, people not only have credit cards, but a very typical loan are educational or home loans. And even though I have “federal” loans for my schooling, a private bank oversees the loan contract. So, who really is responsible for these educational loans? With the driving consumer market (I want that, and that, and that!) it is very tempting to get loans if not for particular products, for an education that would allow more buying power to get all the things one would want or desire. So back to the example. As people get paid, they pay other corporations, who pay other people, and intrinsically, even the CEO’s have debt (and even if a CEO does not, having a high credit score allows them the option for loans in the future). Whether it be a home mortgage, car loan, educational loans, or a credit card, the debt basically moves the money from the economy to the hands of the banks (also keep in mind, banks have stocks in pretty much any major corporation on this planet). As more and more debt is enacted on the populace, more and more percentage of the income of the average worker has to end up to the banks. And so, I guess I can sum up my thought to this:

Money travels up the socioeconomic ladder, not down.

What is ingenious about this whole system, is that when I get a paycheck, or a bonus from my company, I have the very easy illusion or perceptiveness that this new money is mine. This is somewhat accurate, but not completely. Inevitably I will not only have to pay my debts, but I will purchase other products and services that help pay the debts of other people. And well, all of that money essentially moves back to the banks. (Credit card companies are owned by the banks. And have you seen the credit consolidation companies on TV? Well, they are owned by the credit card companies, which essentially means they are owned by the banks as well.)

So now, we have a population who thinks they are free but are really enslaved. They are pushed to think they have to pay off all of their debts (to increase credit score [banks] and to fulfill the consumerism drive) and so people work jobs ranging from waiting at restaurants, to welding metal at construction sites. And well, if one were to really think about it, in order to really enjoy a very lavish lifestyle, one needs a population that are willing to do those sort of things for you. If I have trillions of dollars, what would it be worth if when I go to a sandwich shop I have to make the sandwich myself? When I want a new iPad, I need not only someone to come up with the product but to be able to produce the product as well. This intrinsically means people are needed for construction of the very facilities to produce such products. I heard a quote from an economic philosopher, and I will never forget it even though I forgot his name. If I remember correctly, he lived during the 1700’s.

“The rich always need to have a surplus of the poor.” Why? Because the poor are needed to do the jobs to sustain such a “high standard” of living.

If this whole model is analyzed, two things stick out in my opinion. First, this system would not work if the population were not driven to consume at such a high rate. Always having the need to consume more eventually pushes people to get into debt in some way, which therefore drives the whole system. More debt, essentially means more money being electronically transferred to the big banks. Secondly, I have noticed that never in my entire educational career, have I examined the fiscal or economic philosophies of the forefathers. I know why now. Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln (from the book Web of Debt) wanted to enact what was termed The Greenback. The Greenback is a debtless currency that is controlled by The Government. What is beautiful about this whole thing, is it incentifies both parties. If I am a farmer let’s say, and I could use a loan from my government to expand my production, the government will issue me a loan. Of course, I have to pay back interest. Interest on these loans are a tax write off (because interest is essentially how the government gets paid) and if I have enough loans and am able to pay back certain amounts of interest, then I would not have to pay taxes at all. This system also creates an incentive for the government to loan out money and smartly, because the more interest they receive the more money they have to do programs for the people. Once Abraham Lincoln was about to get The Greenback passed, he was conveniently assassinated. Many experts believe the true organization responsible for Lincoln’s death was the private banking sector.

Ultimately, this is not taught so that people do not see other possible ways to go about fiscal and monetary policy. This inevitably creates a population that just keeps the existing system, depends on the system, and expects the system to work. The whole while, money is being funneled to the private banking sector whereby they control everything, from the economy to political governments, to entire countries. This whole time, people have this illusion that when they cash their check at their pay period, that money is theirs. Ultimately, that money isn’t. That money is eventually going to end up in the hands of the banks. And well, if the rate of transactions is increased (electronic vs. physical money) the quicker the money ends up in the hands of the banks.

So, for the most part, humanity is enslaved while thinking they are free. Quite ingenious actually; but, immoral too.

As Rage Against the Machine eloquently puts it at the end of The Matrix, I pray from the bottom of my heart that humanity “Wake(s) Up”.

So what can humanity do to change the system? As my father always has said, “Use the system to reform the system.” The end goal, in my opinion, is to:

Learn about or derive the various methods to go about having a national and or local economy.

Abolish the private banking sector.

Of course, the details of those two points are so comprehensive I am not going to get into it. Also, people would probably die. I am not going to deny that. But the deaths of people towards the cause of reforming a system that is responsible for poverty and enslavement, would be for a heroic cause.

“One is not living, until they have found something to die for.” – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Their deaths would not only improve the lives of billions of people on this planet currently, their deaths would also improve the lives of future generations of humanity to come.

Avatar was actually the very first full length 3D movie I saw at a movie theater. During that time, I was much more of a hardcore gamer than I am now. My job required me to be plugged into the internet constantly, so not only was I browsing everything video games, I was participating in all kinds of forums with regards to gaming. I’ll never forget an off topic forum thread about peoples’ thoughts on the recently released movie Avatar.

The general consensus was not only was it a bad and or poorly executed movie, but that the messages conveyed were essentially dumb. There was a lot of heat towards this movie from the gaming community. I also feel that this was the general trend from the overall population, and evidence of this was the fact that Avatar lost to Hurt Locker in regards to some prestigious movie award. (I constantly get the movie, theater, music, and sport awards all mixed up.) It is true that Hurt Locker was an amazing movie, and it was true that Hurt Locker was able to create such an amazing story with a fraction of the budget that Avatar had, but it is in my view that the most influential factor as to why Avatar lost, was its messages to not only the Human race, but the ideologies of Western thought.

Also, I would like to consider the events when this movie was released. America had already invaded not only Afghanistan, but Iraq. Also, the American People had realized by this point that they were fooled into believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In essence, members of the government created a motive for war, so that other members of power granted the authority of war, so that war could be pursued for the financial interests of a select few. It is known now that Dick Cheney was on the board of directors for the company Halliburton, a large construction company, who have been given contracts to rebuild an Iraq that we essentially destroyed. Compounded by The Confessions of an Economic Hitman, it becomes very apparent that the Iraqi war, and therefore the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and citizens of Iraq, were due to the addiction of profits. And well, that is essentially one of the core messages that is portrayed in the movie Avatar.

I will never forget watching the GOP Presidential Nominee debate on the thirteenth of September. Ron Paul not only said something that was one hundred and ten percent true, but “boo’s” started to be heard throughout the whole audience. Ron Paul’s view according to my understanding, is that we as America are going to constantly run into “Terrorism” if we constantly occupate countries across the globe for our own interests. In fact, one of the nominees said that she would only establish American Embassies in other countries if there was an American interest to be there. Everyone applauded! In my view, this is so wrong. What about the interests of the people who live in that country?

To go back to Ron Paul, is he essentially said the actions of American Foreign Policy created the events of September 11th. He instantly got booed, but in my mind, this is true. Osama bin Laden was very explicit as to why he did what he did. It was not because of some religion that we practice, it had everything to do with occupation, exploitation, and bombing of innocent people. Yes, when bombing it is very possible and part of war to have the bomb either miss a target, or kill someone who was not anticipated to be there. That is the very nature of bombing. However, that innocent person that we killed, has family and friends, who ultimately are going to question why the bombs were dropped in the first place. Considering that, as well as the fact that people are more likely to become terrorists after experiencing the conditions of certain war prisons (I suggest watching the documentary Taxi into the Darkness), it really is the actions of America that brought this upon themselves.

Let me ask the reader this. How would you like it if China came to America, establish fancy buildings called embassies that worked in China’s interests only, while at the same time exploiting our natural resources, and constantly kill innocent people? I do not think we would like it. And this is why our current foreign policy of, “Democratize or we will shoot” will ultimately bring more terrorist attacks on United States soil. It sounds pretty tyrannical to me to force a nation to conform to a certain way to do things, and well, that isn’t American; that isn’t what America was predicated upon.

We all know that one of the resources we wanted from Iraq was their oil. Not only are we addicted to oil as a society, but the very leader of our country had intimate ties to oil companies! This solidified when I read an article from CNN, that released an interview from a military official. Right after the attacks of September 11th, the United States dispatched special forces into Iraq to perform reconnaissance and if possible, secure the perimeter of oil fields. I think from the very beginning, the men in power were looking at the events of September 11th as an opportunity to make more money.

And so, the message of Avatar, of pursuing profits at no matter the consequence, really does not bode well with men and women who not only believe in the free markets, but believe in maximizing profits. Essentially, by seeing yourselves as a bad person in a movie, does not go well with the audience.

Which in my mind, explains why so many people on these forums that I participated in at the time, did not like Avatar. They believed that financial security, and material wealth, were the road of not only success, but happiness. And well, if keeping our way of life means invading other countries and exploiting their resources, then so be it.

But what is so beautiful about this movie, isn’t just this issue. I would argue, that this issue is a very controversial one, especially in our culture, but other statements were made that were very well executed and delivered in my view. For example, I felt the movie really showed the importance of not only learning something accurately, but learning something quickly. If one were to think about this in a Darwinian perspective, someone who is unable to learn important lessons fast enough to survive well obviously die more quickly. Which means, their genes are more likely to not be passed. Which therefore means, that through natural selection, the species of whatever organism should have a population that is able to learn quickly. And if one were to think about it, even in our current age and not necessarily survival, there is a huge advantage to be able to learn something accurately and quickly. Because, the less time you invest in learning that concept, not only is money saved, but more time could be devoted to learning other things. If those things are learned quicker, this opens the time doors to even more concepts that can be learned. And so, someone who is able to learn quickly, will inevitably be more knowledgeable in the long run assuming they constantly push themselves to learn. And so, I challenge what my third grade teacher told my class. “It isn’t about how fast you learn it. It is about understanding the concept at hand.” Now, not all of that is true, but not all of that is not true. But, in my mind, if teachers could teach methods to students on how to learn more efficiently, I think that would greatly benefit the student in the long run. I do also believe that understanding something, is more impactful than simply memorizing something.

Another theme was love. The tango of the two characters that fall in love, I thought was accurate in some areas. For example, there are men out there that get crazy for a woman who is not only a challenge, but seems to be out of their reach. It also shows that in order for a relationship to work, the two people not only need a foundation of friendship, but really have to be on the same page so to speak. I forget her name, but the woman Avatar that taught Jake Sulli the ways of the people, wasn’t even remotely interested at first because he was unable to not only provide for them but a family (he was extremely ignorant of their culture and of ways to survive on that planet). Through their journey of Sulli learning the ways of the people and the planet, not only was he becoming closer on the same page so to speak, but they were learning about one another and establishing a friendship. Finally, at the very end, she sees Jake in his true form, as a human being. I think what the movie might be attempting to show, is that through the journey of loving a person for a long time, one gets to see the very fabric of that person. And well, true love not only means both members accept one another for who they are, but they ultimately do things for the partner first, and not themselves.

And well, even though this isn’t the only interpretation, and, there very well could be things in my interpretation that were inaccurate. And if they were accurate, this could be vastly different from the real world. But in my mind, I am not exactly sure that is important. A lot of these statements, through my reasoning, I agree with. I think in order to make a commitment with someone, I not only have to be a good friend, I have to put something on the table as well. Finally, if I were to truly love this person, I would put her needs in front of my own. And well, that is something that I want. And if that does not exist in this world, I am willing to find a way to fight and change it.

This I think also sheds light onto another reason why popular culture did not like this movie. Our current perception of modern relationships are very shallow in my opinion. I think the main reason why so many relationships fail, is that sex is introduced initially, and not worked up towards. In other words, there is no emotional or friendship foundation, to stay with the commitment. Hell, when things get hard, I could just go to another club or bar and pick someone else up! I am not necessarily saying wait for sex until marriage. I am saying, that I think people should view sex as more emotional on both ends than it is currently perceived. To think that a relationship is going to be successful because both parties like to have sex with one another, the likelihood of success in my mind is drastically reduced compared to two people who truly care about one another; not their sex organs. And so, this view on love in Avatar conflicted with the current messages being portrayed in our modern culture in regards to relationships and sex.

To wrap all of this up, in my opinion, I think Avatar was one of the best movies that I have ever seen. I absolutely love the story, I love the thoughts that it provokes in me, and well, I love the world that is shown. People that are respectful to not only one another, they are respectful to the world around them, and well, they are respectful to their very creator. And well, I also respect the people who made this movie for having the back bone to make something like that in our society. It takes the radical, or the controversial thought, that eventually brings about a better world for all of humanity.

Today I had my eyes wide open with wonder after one of my classes. My instructor for this class has been one of the best instructors that I have ever had. There are many things going for him, but I have to admit, he has one of the sharpest minds I have ever known.

He introduced a thought experiment to the class. The first one, was what would you (the student) do if you crash landed on a planet that was completely sustainable to life as we know it, however there were no civilizations?

The second one, had to do with our five senses. First, he was talking about the limitations of them. Our eyes can only perceive a fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. What would our world be like if we could see everything from gamma to infrared light waves? What about sound? How cool would it be to hear ultrasound! One could literally sense when a submarine was nearby when he or she was out fishing. What if the human could sense the touch of microbes? What if we could taste the air like a snake?

To make things even more interesting, is what about the possibility of a sixth sense? He posed this question: “What if humanity was initially given four senses, and the sense lost was sight. How would humanity adapt? Then, what would happen if a human “evolved” (or basically acquired) the sense of sight? What would be the repercussions for not only the human race, but that individual? How could he describe sight to people who have never seen before?”

He then went and told about hand-eye coordination. Just because someone can see, and just because someone has physical hands, does not necessarily mean they have the hands to catch a ball. He left the discussion at that, showing the possibility that other senses could be rooted from the five fundamental senses that we experience every day. I was not only awe-struck, but I had to rush to the cafeteria and get some food, because I was exhausted I was thinking so much.

So what does this all mean? I suppose before I start, I need to talk about another thought experiment done by physicists and mathematicians when explaining what dimensions above three dimensions look like. If a man were to perceive only in a two-dimensional world i.e. exist only on a piece of paper, that person would not be able to perceive three dimensions even though those dimensions exist outside of the piece of paper. So, they logically follow this in our current existence. Since humans perceive (derived from our five senses) the reality around us in three dimensions, it would be extremely unlikely to perceive what other dimensions look like even though the existence of extra dimensions would be present. In other words: Just because humanity can not perceive four and above dimensions does not necessarily mean these extra dimensions are not there.

Now back to the senses thought experiment that was discussed in my class earlier today. Could it be possible for a human being to either “evolve” with another sense, or calibrate another sense using the original five? If this is possible, what would that mean?

It would not only create a perceivement that brings us closer to Truth, but it may open the doors to people being able to see other dimensions. This has huge implications. Would humanity be able to see, touch, feel, or even measure, something like a “life force.” Life force could mean anything, from the soul of something to the very energy that breathes life into whatever one is studying.

I just watched a recent block buster movie, Thor. My expectations of this movie was that the movie would not have been nearly as good as Ironman. Well, I was so wrong on so many levels. And well, not only did I find Thor as currently my favorite comic book movie, but I had a wanting, a desire, for that reality in that movie to be real. Not the whole all-powerful hammer that can create or destroy anything, but a universe where traveling to distant “realms” to not only be possible, but an all-knowing civilization that has embraced both science and spirituality.

If a human being were to find an enlightenment to the point that he or she could not only sense something different, but see it as well, I think this added sense would inevitably lay the foundations of bringing science and spirituality to an ever closer double helix, where one is intimately bounded to the other. Now, it could very well be possible that such an event could be utterly impossible. But, I would argue that no one can say that with one hundred percent certainty. In which case, because this is not one hundred percent certain, it would be consistent and logical to consider the alternative. Could humanity come to an understanding of a sixth sense? Could this unlock others? Could these added senses bring about a Truth that could never have been thought possible? Could there one day be a civilization that could harness wormholes and travel thousands of light years in a fraction of a second? This may sound utterly crazy…..

But if you were to go to someone in the space race during the 60’s, and told them that not only is NASA going to land on mars but is planning to colonize it, they would think you were mentally psychotic and would probably want you to be examined and given some medication. If you were to share with the inventors of the computer what the Internet was going to look at, or the fact that computers now are able to produce three-dimensional images, they would tell you to stop wasting their time and to get some medical attention.

With the advancement of technology….

With the advancement of computational theory…

With the advancement of science…

And well, with mathematics…

And intrinsically, these advancements would provide a better understanding of not only the world around us, but they would open the minds of everyone from economists to philosophers….

I think humanity could very well either achieve another sense, or break the current limitations of our current ones.

Just think, what would a universe look like if we could see all eleven dimensions (as proposed by M-Theory, I think)? Would the spiritual universe open up? Would we be able to see beings that watch over us constantly? Or would there be something else? Could we see parallel universes right before our eyes? Could we peer into a universe where you decided to be an archeologist instead of a biologist?

Classes like these are what classes should be. Open ended discussions, where thinking is not only encouraged but explored. To think, that our current system is promoting standardization, the close minded process of thinking a certain way deemed by some department of the government. Classes like this brings me hope. There are some teachers out there that are not only really passionate about what they do, but they are extremely competent on what they do as well!

And well, now I have something to think and ponder about for the rest of my life.

I remember during my days of Honors Physics back in high school, when my teacher brought in a Tesla Coil to class. Not only was it really cool looking, I was immediately scared. Looking back at it, I was scared of the Tesla Coil for the exact same reasons why neighbors to Tesla himself called authorities: they just did not understand what was going on. And well, my initial impression about this man was the typical impression that most people take when learning about him, specifically the Tesla Coil, that he was a mad scientist trying to create Frankenstein. And the years of my life past, with me completely ignorant on how much our society depends on the very ideas and patents that this man created. How many patents were credited to Tesla? It was stated in the most recent documentary that I just saw that over two hundred patents were in his name at the time of his death.

In fact, when he died, The United States Government rushed into his home (he did not have much family) and ransacked his place to obtain his papers. They were afraid (especially considering the events of World War II) that if these ideas got into the hands of the enemy, it would be disastrous. Therefore, these documents were considered a matter of national security. I am not very sure if there are many men out there, that had their writings confiscated by governmental agents for the sheer fear that these ideas produced.

Tesla invented devices that are necessary for our modern world to exist the way it does. For example, Tesla patented the first electric motor. Electric motors are found everywhere, from inside commercial jet turbines to inside power tools. An electric motor works by capitalizing on the relationship of current and magnetic fields. Electric current and magnetic fields are intricately inner-woven. Meaning, that not only does an electric current create a magnetic field, but a magnetic field creates electric current as well. A basic electric motor has an electromagnet with opposite polls in close approximation to what is termed “the coil.” The coil also has opposing magnetic fields. (This is accomplished by wrapping the electrical wires in opposite directions i.e. clockwise v.s. counter-clockwise.) When current is fed into the overall system, the coil attracts as well as repels the electromagnet, resulting in a never ending cycle of rotational work presuming current can be steadily added to the system. Not only was this ingenious, but it was beautiful in its simplicity.

As Thomas Edison was advocating for direct current, Tesla found an alternative that would greatly reduce overall cost and waste by what he called alternating current. Direct current is quite a simple way to go about things. Current is steadily pushed through the wire (resulting in large amounts of resistance and lost heat) till the current reaches its work destination, whereby it returns. Alternating current is able to reduce resistance (thus lost energy) by pulsating the current through the wire at a certain frequency. One explanation that I have heard, is that the electrons traveling through the wire also conform to the laws of motion, more specifically, inertia. When pulsating very rapidly, there is also a delay between the absence of current and magnetic field, however very miniscule. The pulsating in concordance with residual fields essentially pushes the electrons along the wire. This substantially reduces the amount of heat loss throughout the wire.

Now, Thomas Edison’s ideas on direct current are still very substantial. Even though he was pushing for his ideas to take precedence (as it would bring him more capital) in regards to a large power network, alternating current made more sense. However, with hand held and home based electronics, it has been found that direct current is more practical. Without either of these forefathers of electricity, our modern world would be vastly different.

But Tesla was a visionary and futurist that was centuries ahead of his time. He was trying to find investors to invest into more of his lavish and “crazy” ideas. Tesla theorized that it would be possible to transmit power wirelessly. And, considering that “power” is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, it would be possible to break up that power into multiple frequencies, allowing people to share video, music, and text. That’s right, he invisioned not only a wireless power network, but a wireless communication network on a global scale (The Internet). What is exceptionally beautiful, is that these networks would be under one roof so to speak. Essentially his vision of a house, would be to have a large power station (Tesla Coil) in close proximity to the building. Then, the coil would broadcast power and information into the building. So when someone came home from work, all of their wireless devices would instantly start recharging automatically, and televisions would not have a cable plugging into an outlet in the wall.

If one were to add the fact that he was the father of tidal energy, it became very apparent that he invisioned this at the very beginning. Create sources of energy that uses potential and kinetic energy of the earth, send it using alternating current to a building, whereby a coil would broadcast the current in multiple frequencies resulting in not only wireless power, but wireless data. Beautiful.

When analyzing the contexts of the era that he lived in, the overall picture was viewed as insane and crazy. His investors quickly stopped their funding for Tesla’s ideas, where Tesla never stopped. There have been rumors reported in texts that Tesla succeeded in creating a machine that could induce an earthquake! Stories were told of authorities barging into his lab and Tesla was found destroying a device because he could not shut it down. Once the device was destroyed, the earthquake quickly subsided.

I hope from the bottom of my heart, that this man is never forgotten. If we are able to combine his ideas with the advancement of renewable energies, this world would be such a beautiful place. Not only would buildings be able to broadcast power and information, but the current required for the broadcast could be supplied by renewable energies, ranging from photovoltaic cells to geothermal technologies. But, it seems the profitable corporations do not want this change to take place, because well, they are enjoying their profits. It is also increasingly more difficult for an entrepreneur to compete with such giants. For one, these giants could buy the intellectual property rights. And if that does not succeed, there are many options in the reality of corporate espionage. When working at a datacenter, I saw a company DDoSed out of business, and it was speculated the organization responsible for the DDoS was one of their competitors.

Thank you Tesla. For not only providing the foundations to create this modern world, but an overall plan for humanity to pursue. Thank you.

Today, after I was done helping a good friend of mine with her homework, I tuned her television in on The Presidential Address to Congress from Obama. With this speech, as well as his previous speech about The Budget, I have not only swayed on who exactly I am going to vote for at the next Presidential Election, but I have learned vital lessons on our media.

I am a little embarrassed to share this, but my parents eat up The Fox News’ propaganda every single day. At first, I thought this “news” was great! I had heard over the course of my years at school that it is pretty obvious to many people that the media had either a liberal slant to their reporting, or was liberal propaganda. It really was nice and interesting to hear the conservative perspective. As more and more days passed, I started to not only see that this new style was cool, but I started to believe in these ideals. I am not talking about some of them, I am talking about all of them. However, as The Fox News Network spun The President as being a socialist fascist, and by hearing The President speak himself, I started in my intellectual journey to consider that maybe Fox News could be inaccurate on certain perceptions.

Also, as I was debating more and more on the internet, I started to dive into cognitive distortions. The reason why I did this, was because I saw a general trend in peoples’ thinking that made them create a faulty conclusion. One of the most obvious ones, was there were no gray areas. Either, you had to cut taxes and regulations in all circumstances, raise taxes and regulations in all circumstances, or you had to follow Austrian Business Theory at all points in the business cycle. I soon found the relationship, that a “news” network that showed the conservative viewpoint (by sometimes not even allowing liberal guests to even speak) was not only non-ethical journalism, but it was propaganda. Just as there are probably news channels that are liberal propaganda (I do not know of these personally, as my parents dictate what news we all should watch) Fox News fits the bill for conservative propaganda. It is in my view, that journalism needs to be as unbiased as possible. It is readily apparent that to be completely unbiased is somewhat impossible! Everyone has their own opinions, so therefore, to be consistent, I think journalists should strive to show a liberal slant for every conservative slant and vice versa. Therefore, following this logic, I do not see channels like Fox News to be true journalists; they are completely unethical.

I think it is pretty safe to say that I have heard the conservative viewpoint on pretty much every issue, and hearing tonight’s speech from President Obama not only was inspiring to me, but it showed me that I do not know who to vote for next! I was pretty convinced that I was going to vote Republican this next Presidential Election. However, after hearing that speech, I am curious how The President would respond to the heat from his conservative counterparts. This is why I am pretty excited to see the debates between the two candidacies, and therefore, the two schools of thought so to speak.

I will have to say, is that when I usually believe in something, it is either very conservative or very liberal. It’s strange. So for example, I have a very liberal standpoint with regards to how we should not only deal with global warming, but more specifically, I think we should attack carbon dioxide emissions as aggressively as possible. I have done my best to educate myself on both sides, and it is in my view, that humanity is indeed responsible for the effects of climate change. Furthermore, I think hitting our economy with less carbon emissions is what we have to do as a human race if we want an Earth that is going to be sustainable. (I have not even seen the documentary promoted by Al Gore. That whole video has received so much heat I haven’t even watched it. I have seen various science channel and PBS documentaries, as well as reading articles on Global Warming for one of my classes.) Therefore, I think we as a people should view carbon dioxide emission reduction as an investment, and not as a complete financial expense.

I watched the GOP presidential nominee debate the other night, and I have to admit, I have a very conservative view point with regards to immigration. For one, I think some sort of border barrier has to be established. Once that is in place, we have to in my mind reform policies that attract so many immigrants in the first place! The first reform that I think needs to happen is to make hiring illegal immigrants illegal. Secondly, we have to reform the legal immigration process and advertise that process. Thirdly, I think The United States Government should refrain and be held accountable in the event the government is caught transporting firearms to The Mexican Drug Cartels.

There are more examples, but it seems with me, I am either very liberal or very conservative. However, I admit that I have both schools of thought in me. I think it is very dangerous to say to yourself essentially, “The Conservative school of thought is right in all instances (my parents)” and vice versa, as that is pretty black and white thinking. I am not going to waste the time with providing examples of policies enacted from both sides that have been beneficial to our society. And well, that is why I think our political system in all of its imperfections, got the idea of political debate right. Have both sides share their thoughts and reasonings, and once they come to a compromise, the bill in most cases will have instances from both schools of thought.

So Mr. President, in the extreme unlikely event that you are reading this blog, you need to have your voice heard more! Of course, conservative propaganda is going to spin absolutely every word that comes out of your mouth as socialist and fascist. Hell, they use those words like they have turrets. I do not think they even know what these words mean anymore they use them so much. So yes, you will be spun. At the same time, I think a strong leader should not take the punches constantly so to speak. Defend yourself, and speak out! If you want my vote this upcoming Presidential Term, it is still possible to get it, but I feel you need to not only be more transparent with The American Public, but you also have to take your criticisms and spins head on. Even if you prove yourself to be a competent President (I still have not heard you talk about The Stimulus Bill’s performance), I do not want a President that is a complete sissy. And so, that speech was a wonderful start Mr. President. I urge you to not only address Congress, but also The American Public more with regards to your actions and reasonings. Stop taking it and start giving it! Otherwise, even if you prove to have more of a competency that is being portrayed, and even if you prove that you have more competency than your competition, I am sorry, but I am going to have to vote for the other candidate because I do not want a sissy as a President.

So after tonight, I am very confident in saying that The Conservative Media, more specifically Fox News, in my opinion, has most of it (notice I did not use the word all) wrong with regards to President Obama. I think for sure Obama has a good heart. Now, it is more of a debate on whether or not he is competent with regards to leading a country. I completely agree with that. But in order to accurately deduce a conclusion in that context, I believe it is important to hear from the man himself. Furthermore, since I feel it is undebateable in regards to where his intentions lie, I am very confident in saying Obama is not a fascist. I think he truly believes in not only the ideals that this country was predicated upon, but he is very prideful to be an American and I think he knows more than most people on what being an American means.

I have decided to try my best to get my news somewhere else than television. I just do not trust it at all. Web sources are good, however my head hurts after reading on a LCD screen for a very long time. So I am thinking magazines, news papers, and radio (which includes internet radio). It is my current perception, that these mediums do share biases, but it is not to the extreme as the biases shown by the media on television.

I am not saying I am definitely going to vote republican or democrat this next election. All that I am saying, is that I am not sure now who I am going to vote for. And well, when the presidential race really starts, I feel the presidential debates are going to be so key for my vote.

Through my experiences of my life, as well as a class on communication, I have determined on how to explain why certain genders behave; more specifically, males. I have decided to put my writing energies toward this blog, instead of online debate forums. Now, debating is a very useful tool when trying to learn more about a concept. The problem, especially when anybody and everybody can debate with the advent of the internet, is usually the debate is non-respectful and irrational in nature.

A big part of this, has to do with how males tend to communicate. First, it is known that a lot of males like to debate. That is not to say there are no female debaters, it is just a general trend. Also, it has come to my observations, that men constantly exert their dominance towards other men as well as to women. Obviously, how people perceive these exertions has a lot to do with their gender as well.

It should be noted, that the very nature of writings like these are more of a general explanation. In other words, it is probably very easy to pick out very specific situations where these thoughts may or may not hold true, however that does not necessarily disprove the entire model. Maybe parts, but also, keep in mind this has to do with generalizations which deal with the general public (not all).

I think a good place to start, is what exactly is dominance? And well, are there sub-types or different kinds of dominance?

Dominance: the disposition of an individual to assert control in dealing with others.

Dominance makes good sense if you take a Darwinian perspective. If a male turns out to be the alpha male, the male that has control with dealing with others, it increases his survival compared to a male that does not have this status. So, it makes sense that males want to exert dominance, because if they do become more controlling (dominant) in the social hierarchy, their probability of survival increases.

It is in my opinion, that different males respond to different forms of dominance. One guy might be showing off how big his muscles are, while another would brag to his guy friends on how many women he slept with (who says quantity is better than quality?) while another may determine his dominance by intellectualism, or, art! It comes in many forms. Which means that it is very possible to have a bunch of men talking to one another in a big circle. Each man, would revere one form of dominance more predominant than the other. So, what is a funny possibility? That after that discussion, every single male could think they were the most dominant. Typical, right?

It is in my view, that if you have one male that is exerting, for example, his physical dominance to another male that views physical dominance as priority, a huge tango will take place to determine who is the most dominant. For, the winner, will be able to “control” to some extent the other, hereby increasing their chances for survival.

If you have one male that exerts artistic dominance towards someone who thinks sexual dominance is most influential, then not only is this clash increasingly less important, but if a clash were to take place, it does not have as much as an impact. So what if some guy can sleep with more women than me, my art is much better and I can make more money than him! While the other guy says, “So what if that guy can paint, I can sleep with any woman that I want and I can make more money than him!”

The end result is that usually men tango with regards to dominance, constantly. Things also get more and more irrational when someone correlates their dominance to their self-worth, and that may manifest into narcissism.

So what does this have to do with a can of worms? (As my Dad is notorious for saying.)

I just read a post of a man who apparently has a PhD, who said he did not address my previous forum post because it was a bunch of chemical equations, and they do not pertain to The Four Laws of Thermodynamics.

That is so stupid, so irrational on so many levels, that I am not going to even begin to type that out. (This guy has a PhD!) Now, I have dealt with some dumb statements in the past on these forums, but this was the last straw. I threw up my hands in the air, and basically said most of these people have no chance. Their insanity can not be cured.

Insanity: utter folly; stupidity

Why is this occurring though? For one, I think our educational system is a joke. It was created during an age of The Industrial Revolution while following the philosophies of The Renaissance. I think it is reasonable to assume that there lies the possibility that our system needs to reform.

But I think his statements had more to do with exerting his dominance over me, and less about the educational system. Under his view, he could not under any circumstance allow me to come out on top. So no matter what I would say, even if it was perfectly logical (which I doubt it was), it would be viewed as irrational to him, simply because he is practicing irrationality. But why follow the dominance to such an extreme? It is in my view because he was a narcissist, and was experiencing what is termed narcissistic rage. (I feel another way to explain this occurrence, is someone who equates their dominance to their very self-worth.)

I see this on a bus going my way to visit some friends. There are obvious males who desire to be the alpha male on that bus, constantly. And they make it known, “I am the alpha male.” Which in my opinion, is pretty dumb. How much more likelihood of survival are you going to establish by controlling a trip on a bus? I’ll do the thinking for you guys, it is not much.

I’ve had teachers in the past who felt threatened by what I was saying or doing, and so they exerted their authority to make sure I knew who was the alpha male in their mind.

This model, in my view, is everywhere.

Women are a whole other ball game. I feel like I may have some idea, however, this is intrinsically more difficult because I am a male, not a female.

When examining the very nature of our educational system, either by reading arguments for or against the overall educational reform, compounded by the fact that I personally am still a part of this system, I feel it is safe to say that our current system has its advantages and disadvantages.

And, in order to make this system better (create more advantages), I think it is very important to examine the disadvantages. It is in my view, that the most damaging way our educational system has failed the people of The United States is by breeding people who are non-consistent in their logic. I will say further, that our educational system usually (does not mean all cases) produces uneducated people that think they are educated.

So what is logical consistency, and more importantly, how does consistency or lack of consistency manifest itself to the reality around us? Let me start with the very definition of the word.

This is not the only definition, however it is the definition that is relevant for this discussion.

So to answer my first question by using the definition of the word, is that logical consistency would be someone who not only follows the rules of logical conclusion, but follows the very conclusions that he or she makes even if those conclusions were unpleasant.

So how does this lack of consistency manifest into the world of education? I think the best way to describe this phenomena, is the cognitive distortion of filtering, and black and white or all or nothing thinking.

A cognitive distortion are mechanisms that can be found in any persons’ thinking that distort the reality in front of them. Which means, the reality is not True reality, and so therefore cognitive distortions are irrational in nature.

Filtering is the harder of the two to explain, so let me start with that. Filtering basically means that someone refuses to see the complete picture. A typical example of this, would be how a depressed person sees the world. A depressed person constantly dwells and “sees” the negative outcomes and consequences of everything around them. They filter out all the good stuff. The reason why filtering lacks consistency, is because anyone who lives in this world should know that anything in this world has advantages and disadvantages. To either look at the advantages and not the disadvantages, or to focus on the disadvantages and refuse to even acknowledge the advantages, is not only inconsistent but it is practicing the cognitive distortion of filtering.

The second cognitive distortion is black and white or all or nothing thinking. I will take the easy example of politics. Let us examine how this statement which is black and white in nature, is irrational. “All government regulations are bad, and all taxes should be cut in all circumstances.”

In order for any logical statement to be true, the reverse has to be true as well. Therefore, if we were to symbolize this, this is what it would look like:

A —> B if and only if

-A —> -B

So let us define these variables:

A = All government regulations

B = Are “bad”

-A = No government regulations

-B = Are “good”

Therefore, if all government regulations are bad, then no government regulations must be good.

When the American Public goes out to eat in the restaurant sector of the economy, they trust that the food that is sold to themselves are sanitary in nature. In fact, any restaurant will usually show off their “A” rating when they meet the governmental standards to approve such a rating. If those regulations were not in place, the citizen would have to inspect each and every restaurant that they want to eat at, and if they are intelligent, they would inspect a restaurant even if in the past the restaurant passed their personal inspections. Furthermore, does the citizen feel they are competent in determining on what is sanitary or not?

What about food super markets? Think about how much more time would need to be invested (money lost, because everyone is worth so much per hour) just to buy groceries?

What about bridge inspection?

What about financial regulation? If anyone has learned anything from our recent financial crisis, I hope they realized that our financial system does need some regulations. In fact, the very people that fought regulations went to the government and said, “You should have enacted more regulations so this would not of happened!” Very typical from some very irrational people.

Therefore, it is safe to say that -A –/–> -B

Therefore, A –/–> B

For the sake of saving time and energy on both our ends, I will not write out the examination of the statement ,”Cutting all taxes in all situations” is illogical. However, the same method can be used.

And so, all or nothing thinking is very irrational.

How does this all effect us in the classroom?

There are many examples, but I am going to focus on a controversial one. That is how our educational system presents Evolution into our classrooms.

I remember during my days of Honors Biology in high school, evolution was scientific fact. Which, is a very big misinterpretation on The Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is an overall theory based off of large amounts of scientific facts. There is a huge difference. Especially considering how interpretation effects scientific conclusions. All the mathematical analyses are pointless if the person doing these analyses are not able to accurately interpret what it all means.

Furthermore, there was absolutely no discussion about the criticisms of the current model, or what new findings that might be altering the whole model. I just read an article that scientists are finding more and more species of man. And, they are finding out that there is evidence that all these different species mated. Which means, there is a human diversity that they did not anticipate. Which means, how exactly do you define man? Evolution is looking to be much more fluid than it was once perceived.

So, is it possible, that evolutionary biologists do not know everything? They even admit that they don’t! Which means, just because an overall theory is predicated upon a lot of scientific facts, does not necessarily mean that it is completely right. And if you follow consistent logic, that also does not mean it is completely wrong either.

So it is very ignorant coming from a teacher who has at least a masters degree to not teach the criticisms of the whole model of how humanity got here. That is not consistent, and therefore, it is not rational. Which means this inevitably will feed more inconsistent thoughts to the students, whereby the whole process of a more ignorant mass accelerates by a snowball effect. (There are other examples of this, like the pros and cons of a capitalistic market.)

What is a solution?

I think the easiest solution would be to force school districts to teach Logic at a much younger age. I think if students are more competent of mathematical logic, this will inevitably give them a tool that will allow them to think more accurately, logically, and therefore, rationally.

And so, I leave you with one way our educational system has failed us. But I do not think that is the complete picture. There are other failures, and just to be consistent, there ways that the educational system has served the people well. However, part of the overall problem with thinking irrationally is not just cognitive distortions. Another huge problem I have run into, is what I term The Male Communicative Dominance Theory.